H.B. 433 Professional Licensing Amendments: transcript

House Business, Labor, and Commerce Committee, Feb 20, 2026

1. Chair Maloy (presiding)58:08

   Uh, Representative Wilcox, you're up HB 4 33. First set Is this one.

2. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox58:28

   Go ahead. All right, thank you. Um, I direct everybody to your, uh, if you haven't noticed the email thing that came in with the substitute, that's the one that we're gonna be speaking to. So we need, we do need to adopt that. Um, we've paired this back quite a bit, um, as we all know what budget year we're in. So what this functionally does right now, uh, we're temp Yeah. Should be a first sub. That should be on all your, all your things. It was there when I, when I checked. So, um, basically what we're trying to do is we're trying to e extend, uh, the privilege that we have as legislators to raise the, raise the flag for ler, uh, when these things come out. So, to our citizens, to our constituents, this, uh, really just extends that privilege to them. A person now is the language where they can raise their hand and say that this ought to be, ought to be reviewed. It also provides a little bit of accountability for us. Uh, so this, this gives us a little bit because they're going to copy us. So if a constituent from Mapleton, uh, raises their hand and says, and says, Hey, I've got this issue. I've submitted this to ler LER will, then the course, they will, uh, notify the business and labor chairs. That's a matter of course, a practice of, of tradition. But now they will also just send an email to us, and so that we know that there's a constituent of ours. Um, and then we can hopefully build that relationship. Um, just to give you some feedback, um, almost when, when I had the conversation with them about how that's working in practice right now with the legislator flag, nearly a hundred percent of those are from lobbyists. Lobbyists already have access to the hill. Almost every legislator referral really comes from a lobbyist. And what we're hoping to do, um, and this is like the third year we've, we've attempted to, to adjust and on this, um, is to democratize that a little bit for our constituents. So it's our average citizen that has the ability to do that LER will get back to them. I, I appreciate, um, in fact, I think I saw Jacob back there. I know Jess back there, and they'll come up and, and talk. You guys can come up as part of the presentation or you can come up for public. Um, but, uh, there will be no fiscal note anymore, um, as part of this. And I appreciate them working with us, uh, most of the day yesterday, as we're going back and forth and making sure that we got this in the right spot. So, or Margaret, Hey, bonus, I came in when you were speaking. Here you go. Mr. Chair, is it okay if I speak?

3. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:01:02

   Yes, it is. Okay.

4. Margaret Woolley Busse, Executive Director, Department of Commerce1:01:03

   Good to be here. Margaret Will Bussey, um, executive Director of the Department of Commerce. We just wanna say we're excited about this bill and we appreciate, um, Representative Wilcox working with us on it. Um, as you know, the office of a professional licensure review, which you all created, I think it was four years ago, um, has really done incredible work in reviewing really where we can reduce barriers in our professional licensing licensing regime. And I think this bill will really just build on that by, as Representative Wilcox said, giving access to the public to be able to make inquiries, make public requests. And so, uh, we're excited about that and support this bill. Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation? Okay.

5. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:01:51

   Bring it back to the committee for clarifying questions. Representative Teuscher.

6. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:01:56

   Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for that presentation. So a couple questions I have. One is, if I understand this right, any member of the public then can submit the request, but this requires then for LER to respond to that request actually to determine whether or not harm exists and to do some sort of reporting around that. Is that, is that correct?

7. Margaret Woolley Busse, Executive Director, Department of Commerce1:02:17

   Yeah, that's the intent. Yeah. But we're also doing that subject to resource availability and, you know, it's not gonna, you know, supersede other work necessarily.

8. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:02:27

   So, so can you walk me through that a little bit? I mean, how many requests do you think that this might generate? And, um, when you say kind of based on priority, how is that prioritization going to take place? Will the legislative requests have first priority versus the public requests? And if you get a big backlog, you know, how's the, how are we gonna understand that and, and the resourcing constraints that you have?

9. Margaret Woolley Busse, Executive Director, Department of Commerce1:02:52

   Yeah, I think it's a great request because as Representative Wilcox said, there is no fiscal note. So we're not adding any additional resources to, to LER here. Although I would say if it turns out we get a flood of these, we can always come back next year and ask for more resources. But right now, we just don't know. Um, and in terms of how we'd prioritize, and I'm gonna let Jeff speak in a second, but I would just say in general, when we get any kind of request, we're looking at it for like, how substantive is this and how much of a difference could it make for the Utah public if we were to look into this. So we're kind of doing that initial screening, and then we do informally check in with, with the legislature as well. So I don't know if you wanna speak to that.

10. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:03:35

    Yeah. So Jeff Shumway, director, office of Professional Licensure Review. Um, this has been a key question for me since the founding of the office is how we prioritize these things. Yeah. What we found since HB 4 74, um, created an input form on our website. We've only had one substantive inquiry come in from the public so far. So I don't think we'll be inundated, is my guess. But who knows things can change if we are over capacity, what we've done in the past, because we have been over a capacity in terms of requests, even just from legislators in some of our years, what we've done is inform legislative leadership, business labor chairs about how we're planning to prioritize, we'll wait for feedback, and if, if we get feedback, we incorporate that. Um, although we're not bound to by statute, and if we don't, we move forward. So we, we try to be as transparent as possible, but still operate within the statute, which gives us that flexibility to make that determination. In terms of the substance of the, the determination, what we're looking for is what kind of an impact does this have on the Utah public? So we think in terms of economic terms, in terms of patient safety. So we're looking at the number of people affected, both licensees and how they serve the public. So for a critical occupation like nursing, we would elevate that much higher than some other occupations because of the role they play in society. And if I can add to something too, I, some of that glut from just my peripheral conversation. I think the chairs probably have a better understanding of this than I do, but some of that glut happened just because there was a greater need. That's why we created the office, that we've worked through a lot of that in the last four years. They've done great work. Like I, we're super proud of what we've created here. And so I also, I don't think there's gonna be like a rush. Like the initial stuff that got me going on, this was in the energy industry and that was already addressed. Right. So I, I think for the creation here and part of, part of really what we're just trying to drive down, yes, we put the thing on the website that's, that's good. And now that we're elevating the, the constituent voice a little bit officially and saying, Hey, yeah, you get to be in line. I don't think there's gonna be a glut because of what they've already done. So we'll see. But I think they've done a good job.

11. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:05:46

    Can I ask one, one additional question, and that is, um, for that response that you received, or if you were, say, this bill didn't pass, do you, do you feel like you don't have the ability to respond to those inquiries that, that you have? I mean, do you need this statutory, uh, permission to go ahead and do that? Or what, what does this give you that you don't have today?

12. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:06:07

    So, so today we don't have any obligation to, to even respond when we get something in from the public, right? We do as a matter of kind of courtesy. I think what this does is require us to be, um, I think a little more thoughtful in that response. From what I read in this language, I don't think we have to respond with a review. We can simply respond to say, um, this doesn't fall within our purview, or this is likely gonna be lower priority for us, or we don't have capacity right now to respond. I, I think we have the ability to do that. Um, but it does, I think, provide transparency for the public in making that inquiry, which I like, I like the idea that the public also has access to what we're trying to do around licensing reform. And the other part to that too, is some of those things, if it's not in their purview, some of those are just policy decisions, which is why I added the piece where they just notify us. Mm-hmm. Right. Because that's a policy decision that we need to make, then at least we know that we had a constituent that reached out. And that's, that's the value I think, in that piece.

13. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:07:04

    Thank you. And we can decide. Yeah.

14. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:07:07

    Thank you. Uh, Representative Ivory.

15. Rep. Ken Ivory1:07:10

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just quickly, I mean, I agree with Representative Wilcox. I think the output's been very helpful and tremendous in what you've been doing. I'm curious, you said you had one substantive inquiry. What, what does a substantive inquiry look like from your standpoint?

16. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:07:26

    So the, the non substantive inquiries tend to be about, so when we're doing our periodic reviews, people will hear Opular is doing X and they sometimes find their way to that form, and they'll give us feedback on the periodic review work that we're doing. So it's not a separate item, the one separate item that we received. And I'm doing this from memory, I'd have to go back and, and check, and I'm happy to tell you exactly, I think it was someone checking in asking about, um, if I'm remembering correctly, it was administrative rule and it was something that we were about to review. And so we responded and said, that's in our queue. It's coming up in the next year. Let us know if you have other input. And, and that was, that was the whole response.

17. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:08:08

    Great. Thank you. Okay.

18. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:08:11

    Uh, Representative Dunnigan, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate the good work you do in your office. I am concerned. So to me, this seems like this is not a problem. The public can already go online, do the request, and I am concerned that certain professions or whomever could get organized and send you a hundred or whatever. I mean, I can easily see that with some of the issues that you're working on and knowing that they're gonna notify their legislator and that you will try to respond. I am concerned that it's gonna take away from your other work. I just help me understand why this is needed. We've had one request. Why, why is this needed? Uh,

19. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:08:58

    I'm happy to speak from my perspective, and then let the sponsor and executive director Bussy weigh in as well. I think from my perspective, the, the main impact that LER has is through our deep dive periodic reviews. That is our core duty, which, frankly, most other states don't have that. And I think it's one of the reasons why we've, we're, we're a bit ahead in that the other duties, sunrise reviews have a statutory requirement that we, we respond within a certain timeframe. The legislative inquiries and this new inquiry are both, they have no statutory deadline. And so I view that as something where we get to prioritize those and inform legislative leadership about how we're prioritizing. So in that sense, if you agree with that prioritization, um, then in that sense, it, it shouldn't disrupt us too much from that core periodic review. I have the same concern you do. There is a scenario under which this is very disruptive and takes away from what we do in the periodic review. If that were to happen, I, I think what I would do is come back to you all and say, Hey, we're being inundated. We need more resources or more prioritization or a different structure. But, but that's the, that's the only thing I can imagine where we would feel disrupted.

20. Rep. James A. Dunnigan1:10:08

    Thank you. I can think of a couple of the professions I've worked with. If they're aware of this, they will take the opportunity to communicate with you on a mass basis. I guess we'll see if that happens or not. In that scenario, I say we can communicate back in a mass response, um, if we had to, but I don't think there's, I mean, each one is not a unique case. If it's a, you know, like the form letters we get kind of a thing. I wouldn't expect that to be difficult to respond To. Thank you.

21. Unknown speaker1:10:42speaker not certain

    Thank you. Um, I have a couple of questions, and I think some of my questions are a follow up to Representative Dunnigan, but, um, what we have seen in our big bills that we've done based on the recommendations from Opular over the past few years, and we have another one next week, uh, coming up. And so, uh, we usually get a lot of people showing up who don't like it or whatever, it's gonna have an effect on 'em. Um, and they wanna make comments. So my, my question is not related to prior, before or during the passage of a bill, but afterwards. So if, uh, if the, if the policy, like next week's bill, uh, goes, goes, passes and goes into effect, then all of a sudden people, everybody has to abide by that new law. So what, how do we prioritize when people start realizing that and it's kind of post bill and then they start saying, well, what, you know, you know, they have an issue with it and they have another question. Does that make sense? Yeah. I, I think, uh, people can do that part already. Um, what this is really doing, and, and they can, obviously anybody can call Department of Commerce or any of that, what this is doing is when they bring something that is a substantive, uh, review request, that they will simply get a response when they get a chance to get a response. But we could just send all those calls to Katie, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't think she would appreciate that. So I, what I'm saying, what I'm suggesting, and, and Margaret can then correct me if I'm wrong, but as it is right now, when they, you know, people make phone calls to commerce, right? When they don't like something, this isn't about that piece. This is the substantive review, um, option. And if there is something like that, like I said, there was only one that he thought came in through the website, uh, previously. I think that's, that's what we're after. And if I can, Mr. Chair, I think, you know what, what Representative Wilcox is trying to do, as I understand it, is really democratize the, the process. So it, it gives the public a legitimate chance of, of getting a request in, really. Yeah. And that's the main thing that, that, you know, the law now says that we have to consider Well and get a response.

22. Unknown speaker1:13:05speaker not certain

    Well, I, and I, uh, I feel I like that idea a lot. And I like the idea that if you do get these inquiries, that the legislators, legislators in that area will be informed. Um, but what will, what could happen a lot is they will contact their legislators directly and, uh, saying, Hey, I have an issue with this that LERs doing. Um, what can you do to help me? And, uh, so in that scenario, would that be, would legislators need to start referring them to directly to LER or, uh, what would happen if the legislators start calling on behalf? Would that increase their priority?

23. Margaret Woolley Busse, Executive Director, Department of Commerce1:13:47speaker not certain

    So we, we already have that authority yes. To, to do that. And that is prioritized, um, from my understanding already. Um, and that I mentioned that in my, the first part of my presentation, almost all of those that have come in, I've been told, are really lobbyist driven. They're not necessarily organic John Q public, you know, kind of a request out there. And that's, that's the one that we're trying to, to elevate To. Right? Yeah. But

24. Unknown speaker1:14:14speaker not certain

    I, but I, I'm referring to that legislator constituent relationship. Yeah. And you know, when I get calls from constituents who need help with government, everything, agencies, yeah. It's like, I do what I can to help and, uh, within the law of course. But, uh, I, I guess, I guess I'm just wondering if that would, if that scenario would create a higher priority, I guess it would than if the, the person from the public just called directly Yeah,

25. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:14:47

    Jeff that, yeah, Go

26. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:14:48

    Ahead. Yeah. I'll, I'll say for, for my perspective, yes, we're gonna respond to a legislator at a higher priority than, than a a, a sole individual contacting us. I mean, my prioritization as I said before, is the periodic review, right? Then the sunrise reviews, those both have a statutory deadline on them, then it's legislator inquiries, and then it would be all else, right? Including these, this new avenue for the public.

27. Unknown speaker1:15:12speaker not certain

    Okay, great. Thank you. So I think, uh, this sounds like a, a, a good bill, and I liked, I really liked the idea that the public can contact you directly and or go through their local legislator. I think it makes it for a good process. Alright, I'm done.

28. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:15:30

    Uh, Representative Whyte.

29. Rep. Stephen L. Whyte1:15:32

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may just ask a couple follow up questions. You bet. This is a valuable discussion. I like the intent behind all of this. Just wondering, is there anything that would prevent LER right now from looping in a legislator with a constituent service? Could that happen right now without having to add another statutory law?

30. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:15:54

    So right now we don't have that requirement or duty, right? So that would be an added step. Um, that's not a burdensome step as long as we have the person's address. Um, but that is not something that we're tasked with doing right now, is looping in a legislator when someone from the public comes to us. Now, almost every time we receive something from the public, it's via a legislator who's reaching out informally saying, I have this constituent, they have this issue. Will you talk to them? And then we work often with Doppel to find out the right place for that to go. So typically it's coming through a legislator anyway to date. So right now it can happen. And my understanding from the discussion is that LER would prefer having this as a requirement rather than just being able to do it anyway. Right now, I guess I, I don't mind, let me put it this way. I'm neutral on whether you all decide to put that in statute as a requirement for me or not. I'm gonna do it because I think it's good practice either way. Um, so I'm, I'm neutral on that question.

31. Rep. Stephen L. Whyte1:16:55

    Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I think just follow up to that, uh, you, uh, would do those calls anyway. You'd take those calls anyway as a courtesy, but, uh, a future director may, may not. And so, uh, that's why I think you wanna put it in statute, right?

32. Rep. Stephen L. Whyte1:17:18

    Yeah. I, I had this, uh, in a past life here at the legislature, I had, I had, uh, representative Burton's job of being the alcohol guy for four years. We've talked about some of the fun parts of that. Yeah, yeah. Um, in, in that role at, at this point, and this is probably the best example, uh, we had, uh, frankly a corrupt administrator of D-A-B-C-I, Jim, remember this moment, Jim, we were no bid contracts happening, all sorts of other things. And the argument was made, uh, that was, was pretty similar. Um, we just need to swap out the director. And at the time we understood that, yes, we could do that, but what happens with the next director if we don't change the structure and the requirements? So we went through that process, we made those changes, and we don't always know who's like, Jeff is awesome, and we feel lucky that we have Jeff and Margaret and they're super communicative and all of that, and we all agree that this is best practice and we should make that part of our standard work. So whether Jeff will do it or not, we wanna make sure that this is just what happens.

33. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:18:24

    Yeah. Great. Thank you. Okay. Representative Ballard?

34. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:18:28

    Uh, yes. I have to say I really like this because right now, um, the, through the governor's office, they have really asked for more of a customer service portal throughout all of their agencies. So this is totally in line with what other agencies are doing as far as a public, uh, service and public feedback. And, um, from the meetings that I've been in, it really has shown more, more efficiency in changing and be more effective. So I, I think is, am I correct in saying that this is really the direction that other agencies are going anyway,

35. Margaret Woolley Busse, Executive Director, Department of Commerce1:19:05

    I can speak to that if that's okay, Mr. Chair. I, um, I think that's true. I mean, this is a little bit of a horse of a different color in the sense that it's sort of like a full blown inquiry that a public, you know, person in the public could put together. But I think it's definitely within the spirit of what we're trying to do throughout the state of Utah department agencies. Um, we're doing it all over the place within our own agency, and we have Qualtrics and we get feedback, and it's, it's actually incredibly helpful.

36. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:19:33

    Good. Thank you. Yeah. Unless, could I please add something, Mr. Chair?

37. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:19:37

    Yeah, go ahead. The, the one thing

38. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:19:38

    to remember about this, and this is the only piece of this that, um, that could keep me up at night in, in that scenario that we talked about, where we're really getting a lot of these, we were set up as a very nerdy, insulated policy group. We're not set up to be customer facing, right? We don't have the resources for that right now. I have an intern who checks every week for this, for this complaint form. If we were getting a lot of them, we would have to restructure. And there is a scenario under which we would need different resourcing to do that, and we would obviously talk about that internally and come back to you all. Um, but that is why we're a horse of a different color. We're not set up to inter interact with the public en mass.

39. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:20:18

    Great. Thank you, Representative Thurston. Thank you.

40. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:20:20

    Just following up on that answer to her question, um, what types of things, how, how do you imagine that there, what types of things would you actually have the bandwidth and the skillset to respond to versus what types of things could just gum up the works and cause confusion?

41. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:20:43

    It's a great question. I mean, a, a lot of what comes to us through the public often via a legislator right now is more of a doppel issue, a licensing division issue than it is an LER issue. That's not unhelpful to us, though. Like, understanding where people are getting hung up in the system is actually really helpful for us. And when we come to do the reviews, we understand the operational barriers people face. So I don't mind understanding those at all. There's also a class where there's a substantive concern. So for instance, right now there's, there's a question about, um, certain procedures that advanced practitioners have been able to do in the past and, and all that. That's a substantive question, which we could in theory review and weigh in on.

42. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:21:27

    Yeah. So if I may, Mr. Chair, so if, if a cosmetologist has a concern about the way cosmetologists are regulated, that likely you said would be a doppel concern. Maybe it's, maybe it's a problem with the way the rules are crafted. So why wouldn't they just go to Doppel and work with the cosmetology board? Why would they be coming to you saying, I need you to provide to me a recommendation to repeal or modify an occupational regulation and not go to Mark Steinle and say, mark, what the heck? This doesn't make any sense. Could you get the board to fix this? Try to answer that, and then Yeah, other folks do the Same. Yeah, they wouldn't do that.

43. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:22:06

    I think we have a statutory duty to make recommendations to the legislature to change statute. I don't believe that's Mark's role unless the legislator comes and asks that. And so we are set up to do that, to make recommendations about changing law in a sense that other parts of commerce are not. So that's the only distinction I would draw if, if my colleagues up here agree.

44. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:22:26

    Yeah. And this isn't an invitation for, for that at all. That's, I mean, they're not, they're not doing that for doppel necessarily. Well, I mean, that's what the short title says to make a recommendation to repeal and modify an occupational regulation for an individual. So allows an individual to petition in the office to make a recommendation to repeal and modify an occupational regulation. Some worker out there is miffed about an occupation regulation, and they're going to go to Opular and say, Hey, could you give me the backing that I need to get someone else to make the change? I, my concern is, is that if this is an invitation at the individual level to complain about how they're regulated, I can see this easily overwhelming the office, and it's really not your mission to deal with this anyway. I guess this would make it your mission, but I guess that's a question, philosophical question. But should this be your mission to handle indi individual complaints about how they're regulated?

45. Jeff Shumway, Director, Office of Professional Licensure Review1:23:20

    So, so I mean, the question right now is we've already extended this to legislators, right? Like that's already already in place. This is to hopefully, and like Margaret said a minute ago, to democratize the process a little bit and allow the average person to raise a substantive issue. Um, we've seen through the website, that's we've, he said we see we've received one of those that's been helpful over the last year. Um, we don't think this is going to be something that overwhelms them. In fact, that's, we don't believe that. Like, based on the numbers that have come in so far, if we can adjust if we're, if we need to. But so far that has not been the case.

46. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:24:00speaker not certain

    You might need a dynamic fiscal note. Do you Do those? We have worked with them carefully to make sure there's not one.

47. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:24:08

    Thank you. Okay. I don't see any more clarifying questions. So we're gonna go to the public. Has anybody from the public like to speak to this? Raise your hands please. Okay.

48. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:24:18

    I don't see anybody from public, Michelle. Okay. Uh, we do have one online. Michelle, Michelle Comb. Michelle, go ahead. Please identify yourself, your organization, and where you're located.

49. Michelle McOmber, CEO, Utah Medical Association1:24:36

    Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? We can hear you, but we can't see you. We need to see you. Oh, okay. Hang on. Oh, why is it not? And I know why the video's not working. Um, see if this one will work. I can't undo my video. Oh, there we go. Wait, There you are. Okay.

50. Michelle McOmber, CEO, Utah Medical Association1:25:10

    All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Michelle Vernal and I am the CEO of the Utah Medical Association representing thousands of physicians in Utah. We are concerned with House Bill 4 33, although the substitute takes away some of our concern, LER is already reviewing occupations every year. We have a process in place in Utah to comment on and review proposed laws and proposed regulations that are created for laws that pass. Individuals can and do also directly contact their legislators to run something. A constituent can contact their legislator anytime they want about anything already. The public can also already contact Oler directly. Um, if a license has been through a review, what happens to requests that someone makes because they don't like the changes or the outcome? When laws are passed and rules are put in place, there's an opportunity by all the public to give input. We do not think this is needed in addition to what Opper can already do and does, do they already respond to legislative requests to review and can respond to the public? Nothing prohibits them from responding. There's another bill coming from the Senate that says Opper will respond to any request for scope expansion in healthcare. So it already gives them more to do. Um, uh, we believe this makes LER more of a political body, which it was not supposed to be, and it was not set up as this bill makes, um, uh, again, LER more political and less independent as they're supposed to be. When LER was put together, it was created to do a periodic review of licensing, and that is what they're doing. But they also can, again, respond to request to review. We would ask you not to pass this bill out. Thank you.

51. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:26:48

    Thank you. Thanks for being here. Anybody else? Okay. Uh, last, last chance, if you'd like to speak as a member of the public from inside the room. Anybody? Okay. We're gonna close the public comment and we're gonna bring it back to the committee for further discussion.

52. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:27:07

    And action. Representative Ivory.

53. Rep. Ken Ivory1:27:09

    Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion we pass out, uh, house Bill 4 33. First sub with a favor. Recommendation. We need to adopt the

54. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:27:17

    Sub. Oh, do we? Yes, please. Okay.

55. Rep. Ken Ivory1:27:19

    Then I would change that motion to adopting, uh, house bill 4 30 33 for substitute The, the sub Right to adopt for a substitute house bill. 4 33.

56. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:27:32

    Okay. So the motion is to adopt the first substitute for HB 4 33 professional licensing amendments. We'll go to the sponsor to respond to the motion.

57. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:27:41

    Yeah, please. That's what we've been speaking to this morning. Um, the other one allowed a private right of action and there were a lot of concerns about different parts of it. So we've been working hard to come to a place where, um, we felt like we were moving the ball and that's that, that's what we've been discussing this morning.

58. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:27:57

    Great. Thank you. Any further discussion to the motion to adopt the sub? Seeing none will go to the maker of the motion. Waive. Waive. Okay. So we, uh, the motion is to adopt the first substitute HB uh, 4 33. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

59. Rep. Ken Ivory1:28:18

    The sub is adopted. Representative Ivory. Yes. So I'll make the motion now to that we pass out for substitute house bill 4 33 with a favorable recommendation.

60. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:28:28

    Okay, great. Thank you. The, uh, motion is to adopt first substitute HB 4 33 professional licensing amendments. Uh, we'll go to the sponsor to respond to the motion.

61. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:28:41

    Yeah. Uh, thank you. I appreciate the motion. Um, I, I don't want to respond to everything that I just heard from, from the medical association, um, but to say that this makes it a hyper political organ move right now, I just, I just reject that flatly. That's absurd. Um, this is really just raising the hand, um, and allowing, uh, our constituents to raise that, that flag in a little bit more of a prominent manner. And it also incorporates our work from, you know, our responsibility to represent them just by notification. This is not a onerous thing. It's, you're talking about an email that you'd get and, and hopefully we do a good job of representing from that point. Um, we can always adjust as we always do. Um, but we also intentionally didn't put tight deadlines or, uh, timelines on 'em so that they can do this in the course of their work. Um, so if they were to get, uh, inundated, which we don't expect to happen, but if they were to do that, then this doesn't put any restrictions on them to, to do any of that outside of their existing resources. There is literally no deadline for that. So I, I don't think that that's a concern either. I appreciate the motion.

62. Unknown speaker1:29:52speaker not certain

    Thank you. And then just quickly to som I mean, I think that's what I was sensitive to the concerns Representative Dunnigan raised, but I think where it says subject to the capacity, resources and constraints, we intentionally, that gives the office the ability to decide whether or not, 'cause they could get in and date it now with, with the form online, but now they can decide if they want to throttle it back. And so with that incur support.

63. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:30:16

    Great. Thank you. I'm gonna take that as your, so, okay. Great. Alright. Uh, thank you.

64. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:30:22

    Uh, we are going to take a roll call. Vote Representatives Ballard? Yes. Burton? Yes. Dunnigan Ivory. Yes. Matthews win. Yes. Peterson? Yes. Roberts? Yes. Sawyer? Yes. Tuscher? Yes. Thurston No. White. Yes. Wilcox? Yep. Chair Malloy. Yes. Chair Kyle? Yes. Okay. Okay. The, uh, the bill passes, uh, 12 to three with, uh, no votes being representatives. Doug, Dungan, Matthews, and Thurston.

65. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:31:05

    Thank you representative. Okay.

66. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:31:32

    Uh, one final motion. Motion Aurn representative Pert Peterson. Thank you Mr. Chair. Motion to adjourn. Okay. We have a motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you everybody.

67. Chair Maloy (presiding)1:31:52speaker not certain

    I'm kind, kind of sensitive to Peterson. He, he doesn't like me to cut him off. Thanks again everybody.

Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee, Mar 3, 2026

1. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:04:38

   Is that I do that? Correct. Uh, let me call house Bill four thirty three first sub, uh, Representative Wilcox. Go ahead.

2. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:04:50

   Thank you. House Bill 4 33, um, is something we worked on, uh, this session with ler. Um, what this really does is it allows the public to weigh in, like legislators do as it relates to, as it relates to licensure. Um, right now, any legislator can raise their hand and say, Hey, would you please take a look at this with ler? And that'll go into the queue. Um, this doesn't, uh, put anybody ahead of, of those requests, um, in addition to their regular work. But what it does do is it allows the public, our constituents to, you know, maybe raise their hand where we haven't seen anything, um, since we put that, uh, standard in where legislators could flag something. Um, what we've seen is 90 plus percent of those requests have really been come from lobbyists. So industry has always had access. That's really what that is. My favorite part of this though, is probably not just that, uh, that they can raise their hand. It's that when that happens, then we get an email as they're representatives, Senator Vickers, we get an email, just a notification that says, Hey, this constituent of yours is worried about this particular thing. And, uh, just a heads up. That way we can do our job and follow up and, and, you know, make sure that things are, are going the way they should. And, and also, if we get a flood of those that Senator Johnson and, and Senator Owens and Senator Stevenson and Senator Millner and Juab all get the same thing, then we all clearly know there's something we need to address. Um, I'm very appreciative to LER and the, the department they've worked, uh, very closely and carefully to help us to, to make sure this didn't have a huge fiscal impact or anything and, and, uh, that they're taking care of our constituents. And so I want to acknowledge, uh, how much I appreciate their help with this.

3. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:06:38

   Thank you. Does that conclude your presentation? It does. Thank you very much. I will open it up for any clarifying questions or comments from the committee.

4. Unknown speaker1:06:47speaker not certain

   No, I, I, uh, actually have some, um, I wonder about whether or not this will politicize some issues. I know that there are some industries that, um, have had discussions about what this particular bill might do for their licenses. Would you like to comment on that?

5. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:07:11

   Uh, yeah. I don't, I don't know how it would politicize anything necessarily. It's not a Republican democrat thing or anything like that. Um, it just allows, and it won't put them in the front of the line. It just says that they'll take a look at it if and when there's an issue. Um, we intentionally structured this so that it doesn't supersede any of their regular work or any of the other requests. And so it's subject to, you know, availability and time. Um, but I don't see how it would be, make it a political issue that we didn't change the standards at all for review. Um, so it'd have to go through the same kind of review that they currently do.

6. Unknown speaker1:07:45speaker not certain

   Thank you. Uh, and also, I'm wondering if this is something that the public can do without this bill? Um, certainly somebody could, uh, notify their legislator and have that conversation with them and have us do that.

7. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:08:02

   And that was kind of the thinking behind our initial. But when I, that's one of the reasons why I mentioned that that's almost entirely like 98% come from lobbyists. That hasn't come from our constituents for the most part. That's been industry who I believe already had access to Opular and had the ability to do that. And so I'm hoping to democratize the process a little bit, um, in their, in our constituents favor.

8. Unknown speaker1:08:27speaker not certain

   So, um, have any, I, I thought that I heard that, um, the public can do this, and there may have been not very many, but maybe one or so, uh, people that have asked for, uh, op review On a Website so they can do it. Is that right?

9. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:08:48

   Uh, yeah. I, we added that last year, uh, the ability to do it through a website, and there have been several that have gone through, I think, um, the, and they can testify if they want this time. I think they're probably here again. Um, but we've had, I think, one substantive one caught through the website process so that that could be, you know, I don't know how effective it is or not. Right. Uh, but, uh, we've had one there.

10. Unknown speaker1:09:12speaker not certain

    Okay. Thank you.

11. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:09:14

    Yeah, I'll turn it over to, uh, Senator Owens.

12. Sen. Derrin R. Owens1:09:18

    Thank you. Um, thank you Madam Chair. I, I wanted to just comment on this a little. I, we ran legislation a few years ago that was called Citizen Feedback, and it, I didn't have a fiscal note on it because, uh, it just made it voluntary, but citizens really liked it kind of like this, that if they have an avenue to go and rate, like say you went into DMV and rate an agency, like have my experience, then they know if there's problem areas or, uh, if somebody's doing an exceptionable job, that I, to me that's what this is, is some, uh, opportunity for some feedback, especially when it talks about harm recognizable and significant harm to help safety and financial welfare of the public. So, um, I, I think I see what you're doing and appreciate the work.

13. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:10:11

    Thank you, Senator. Uh, any other comments from the committee or questions? I'll open it up to the public then. Is there, oh, sorry. Oh yeah. Is there anyone, uh, in the room that would like to speak to this? We do have one person online. I don't see anyone in the room, so I'm going to call on Kevin Green online. Um, Mr. Green, if you will, uh, unmute and also put on your, uh, video. You may go ahead.

14. Kevin Green, Americans for Prosperity Utah1:10:43

    Awesome. Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair and committee members, uh, Kevin Green with Americans for Prosperity Utah. Uh, just speaking in favor of the bill, wanna thank, uh, Representative Wilcox for his work on this issue? Um, I think this is a, a fairly light touch that, you know, we, we want Utah to be the freeze place to live, the freeze place to work. I think this just creates a process that allows the citizens of Utah to, to feel like they're a part of the decisions that are made, as well as giving them a voice when certain things impact them, um, and allows 'em to connect with all of you, uh, who represent them to really help address those problems. And so just ask for your, uh, support on this legislation. Thank you very much. I appreciate you logging on

15. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:11:26

    and giving your testimony. Um, representative, you have an amendment on this bill, is that correct?

16. Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox1:11:38

    I don't think so. Oh, there was a technical thing. She's reminding me. It's li literally like an and from the drafter, so yeah, should go ahead.

17. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:11:50

    Okay. Thank you. I'm gonna bring it back to the committee for a motion and, and just to remind the committee then there is an amendment that needs to be passed. That's why you have good senator entrance, Senator to keep track.

18. Sen. Derrin R. Owens1:12:05

    Thank you. Madam Chair. Iowa would move that we adopt House amendment one to House Bill 4 33. First substitute.

19. Committee chair (acting)1:12:15speaker not certain

    Thank you. It has been moved to adopt Amendment one in Representative Wilcox's name. Is there any discussion to that? Oh, I suppose I should come back to the sponsor and back to the, is there any discussion to that? I seeing none. I will place it to a vote. All those in favor adopt of adopting amendment one. Uh, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I rule that passes four to four to zero. Yep. Thank you. Uh, one more motion maybe

20. Sen. Derrin R. Owens1:12:52

    That we favorably recommend House Bill 4 33. First substitute as amended.

21. Committee chair (acting)1:12:58speaker not certain

    Thank you. The motion is to favor favorably recommend House Bill 4 33. First substitute as professional licensing amendments as amended to the full body of the Senate. Any discussion to that? I'm sorry, I forgot to come back to the Sponsor. That's okay. No, I appreciate it. Good to see Senator Millner come back in. I think we're good. Okay, great. And back to the maker of the motion. I'll put that to a vote unless the chair would like to. No. Okay. I'll put that to a vote. Uh, all those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I rule that passes 5 2 0.

22. Sen. Derrin R. Owens1:13:41speaker not certain

    Thank you. And I'm going Thank Madam Chair. Thank you very much. And I'm going to turn the chair position back over to Senator Millner.

23. Sen. Ann Millner (presiding)1:13:49

    Thank you. Okay. It's all good. So Representative Acton can jump in front of me. She has a tighter schedule Than I do. Okay. Representative Acton, it's being very gentlemanly. Thank you. Substitute. Okay. Uh, so we are moving to this mine at you. Oh, sorry. It's okay. We have to reshuffle here a bit. Okay. Sorry. It's, it's the nature of the last of the committee hearings. Right. Okay.

House floor, Feb 26, 2026